Partly allowed

Gangaram Deharia v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC11 Feb 2019CRR/330/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal revision challenging the conviction and sentence for criminal breach of trust as a public servant under Section 409 IPC. The High Court upheld the conviction based on prosecution evidence but observed that no useful purpose would be served in further imprisonment after over two years and a significant portion of the sentence already served.

What did the court decide?

Conviction maintained under Section 409 IPC; sentence reduced to fifteen days, equivalent to the period already undergone; fine of Rs. 1,000 confirmed.

Gangaram Deharia Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Corruption | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

Criminal Revision No. 330 of 2003

¶4

Gangaram Deharia S/o. Jhaduram Deharia, Aged about 56 years, Resident of village Marid, P.S. Bhilai Bhatti, District Durg (C.G.)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate Durg (C.G.)

¶7

For the Applicant : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Aman Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer

¶8

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vimla Singh Kapoor Order on Board

¶9

11.02.2019

¶10

1 . By the judgment under challenge passed on 18.06.2003 by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Bemetara, Durg in Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 1999, the findings recorded by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bemetara have been affirmed.

¶11

2 . Facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant was working as clerk in the office of Additional Tahsildar, Bemetara, in the year 1979. On 29.09.1998 when he was posted as Nayab Nazir in the Tahsil office at Bemetara, he used to be busy in different government transactions. At that time, Patwari Nand Kumar has made a complaint before the SDO complaining that the salary of

¶12

¶13

the employee for March 1979 was not released by the applicant. Peon Bajrang Lal had also made a complaint that his GPF amount was also not released by the applicant. Therefore, the complaints were forwarded to Additional Tahsildar for inquiry and submit his report. After inquiry the then Additional Tahsildar submitted his inquiry report on 23.04.1997, stating that the applicant dishonesty misappropriated the government money amounting to Rs. 13090.55. Further, the allegation against the applicant is that from 22.09.1978 to 22.04.1979 when his was posted in the Tahsil office at Bemetara, he had misappropriated sum of Rs. 11162.66. The said misappropriation was noticed by the accountant Govind Keshave Talagaonkar under audit report Ex.P-172. Therefore, SDO sent inquiry report Ex.P-17 along with Ex.P-4 regarding lodging of FIR against the applicant. Acting upon this, FIR (Ex.P-3) came to be lodged by PW -2 in Police Station Bemetara. Subsequently, after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against him.

¶14

3 . Having taken into consideration the material on record, the trial Court convicted the accused/applicant under Sections 409 IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for 1 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000. On appeal, learned lower appellate Court has affirmed the same. Hence, this revision.

¶15

4 . Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order impugned being contrary to the evidence on record is liable to be set aside. He further submits that the Courts below have not seen the evidence on record in its proper perspective and have

¶16

¶17

also taken an erroneous view by ignoring the fact that the ingredients of section 409 IPC are not attracted to the case of the prosecution. Counsel for the respondent/ State however, supports the same.

¶18

5 . Heard the State counsel and perused the evidence on record.

¶19

6 . From the evidence of witnesses (PW-1), (PW-2), (PW-7), (PW-9), (PW-11), (PW-12) & (PW-16), it is clear that the accused/applicant committed criminal breach of trust being a public servant by dishonestly misappropriated the government money of Rs. 13090.55 and Rs. 11162.66 during the period from 22.09.1978 to 22.04.1979. Though, the applicant has stated that he has given Rs. 400/- and Rs. 8000/- to the then Tahsildar without receipt but there is no such evidence on the basis of which the version of the applicant is accepted. In addition to this, B.L. Ahirwar (PW-4) - the investigating officer has also supported the case of the prosecution in its entirety and nothing has been brought forth by the defence to rebut the evidence collected by the prosecution. In overall view of the matter, conviction of the accused/applicant under Sections 409 IPC being based on the evidence collected by the prosecution does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and it is maintained accordingly.

¶20

7 . As far as the sentence part of the judgment impugned is concerned, looking to the fact that the incident had taken place

¶21

¶22

22 years ago and the applicant has already suffered the jail sentence of about 1 months 25 days and deposited fine amount of Rs. 1,000/-, in my opinion, no useful purpose is going to be served in again sending him to jail. Accordingly, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶23

8 . With the above, the revision stands allowed in part.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

(Vimla Singh Kapoor) JUDGE

¶26

Jyotishi/Santosh

Gangaram Deharia v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangaram Deharia v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kandru @ Raghu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mosu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dev Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Munna @ Sanjeet Gupta and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Amarjeet Prasad Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Paras Nath Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh